14 ms·

Good article. When it comes to living standards, it is worth mentioning that there was a more equal wealth distribution after the fall of Rome which made it imp

by brodo 5y ago

Good article. When it comes to living standards, it is worth mentioning that there was a more equal wealth distribution after the fall of Rome which made it impossible for medieval nobles to finance large armies. This meant that wars in medieval times where shorter and less bloody then before and after. Also slavery disappeared from Europe, except for Spain. For an everyday normal person in western Europe living around the year 800-1300 was probably better then during antiquity. Early modernity was pretty bad compared to that period too. (witch trials, 30 year war…)

felipemnoa 5y ago
>>This meant that wars in medieval times where shorter and less bloody then(sic) before and after. My brain short circuited a bit when reading this sentence. Just to clarify, you are saying that "wars in medieval times where shorter and less bloody then(sic) before and after" medieval times?
- dmos62 5y ago
  Are you saying that the phrasing is incorrect? Medieval times is some period and there's periods before and after that. I don't see what you're saying.
  - vijayr02 5y ago
    Not OP, I think it's a pedantic point being made. WW1 and WW2 were both after medieval times.
- williamdclt 5y ago
  Probably meant "wars in medieval times were* shorter and less bloody than* before and after"
true_religion 5y ago
Yes, somehow when it comes to slave states, people tend to focus on the lifestyle of the slave masters rather than the great heap of humanity living in squalor to support them. In context though, I wonder if serfs really had it better. They still had no freedom to move, and in the early Middle Ages there was no appeal granted to serfs under a tyrannical lord.
- brodo 5y ago
  Yes although there where also some free farmers. As I understand it, the serfs had more power in the high middle ages than before and after, because the lords also lacked the resources for strong police forces. There was not a lot of metal around, so most soldiers did not have shields or armor. You and your serf buddies could realistically resist the local lord with some forks and knives. Plus the catholic church was also protecting serf's rights to an extend.
  - zrail 5y ago
    Also keep in mind that during that period the Black Plague killed 30-60% of the population. Serfs had more power because there were dramatically fewer of them.
    - varjag 5y ago
      On the other hand if it took a plague to improve the standards of living it is fair to agree the baseline was quite abysmal.
      - zrail 5y ago
        Oh no doubt!
      - rufus_foreman 5y ago
        I don't think that argument makes sense. What's the country with the highest standard of living today? This says it's Canada: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-r.... If a plague wiped out 50% of the population of Canada, and wages went up afterwards, would that mean that the current standard of living in Canada is quite abysmal?
        TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
        If a plague wiped out 50% of the population of the First World countries, wages wouldn't go up, they'd disappear entirely. The just-in-time supply chains that keep the lights on and food and other goods in the stores would fall apart within a couple of weeks. Medieval starvation was local. Areas were largely self-sufficient in the bare essentials - except in bad years, which happened regularly enough to keep a lid on population growth, but not so regularly they caused widespread depopulation. Trade was mostly for useful extras. That's very much not true today. Everything is specialised and interdependent, and not even farming areas are truly self-sufficient. This was - and possibly still is - the biggest risk from a pandemic. It's hard to calculate the exact tipping point, but when you have a certain percentage of the population unable to work for a couple of weeks or so, essential systems start breaking down.
mwaitjmp 5y ago
> Also slavery disappeared from Europe, except for Spain Slavery was unfortunately very much a thing in Anglo Saxon England. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#2 Pre the migration of the Saxons into England (not long after the Romans left leaving the inhabitants unprotected) they would raid coastal areas and carry off slaves back across the sea. Later, Viking raiders would do the same…
bnralt 5y ago
There were plenty of long and bloody wars during the High Middle Ages (such as the Albigensian Crusade and the Anarchy, just to name a couple). I think a large part of the author's point that this is a long period of time (even if we restrict it to 800-1300, that's about the same length of time as between Columbus' voyage and today), covering a large area (even if we restrict it to Western Europe), and it's difficult to come up with a single criteria of comparison.
tonmoy 5y ago
Do you have any sources for either of these claims? This goes against my general intuition (which could itself be wrong)
- tarsinge 5y ago
  I don’t have a source for this whole question but regarding that intuition: > English peasants likely didn’t work more than 120-150 days a year. That’s about 215-245 days off a year. From https://www.fodors.com/news/news/you-wont-believe-who-got-more-vacation-days-than-you https://www.fodors.com/news/news/you-wont-believe-who-got-mo...
  - watwut 5y ago
    That assumes there is no work out of season. So, no making of bed sheets, no matter king of cloth, candles, fixing tools, no animal care out of season and no work related to small children. No storage maintenance, no baking/cooking.
    - jacobolus 5y ago
      Peasants everywhere work full time, all through the year. For people who are just managing to survive, there is always something that needs doing. Growing or foraging and preparing food (especially manually milling grain); making (starting from raw plant/animal fibers), patching, and cleaning clothing; building hedges, fences, walls, and thatched roofs; making pottery; making and maintaining tools; taking care of animals; .... are extremely labor intensive. To get some idea what life was like for Stuart-period English farmers (and life was much the same in preceding centuries), see the BBC show Tales from the Green Valley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_historic_farm_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_historic_farm_series
zeteo 5y ago
> wars in medieval times where shorter and less bloody then before and after Each individual war was shorter and less bloody but there were many more of them as the barons were feuding constantly in the absence of central authority. Also roving bands would periodically loot and burn while passing by. If you look at the time and effort invested into castles and city walls in the period it tells you all you need to know about how safe people felt at the time.
thrownblown 5y ago
Lol. Slavery certainly did not disappear to everywhere but Spain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_slave_trade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_slave_trade
mc32 5y ago
Russia had serfs till late 1800s. They were tied to the land of their lord, so effectively, they were slaves.

by brodo 5y ago

felipemnoa 5y ago

>>This meant that wars in medieval times where shorter and less bloody then(sic) before and after. My brain short circuited a bit when reading this sentence. Just to clarify, you are saying that "wars in medieval times where shorter and less bloody then(sic) before and after" medieval times?

dmos62 5y ago
Are you saying that the phrasing is incorrect? Medieval times is some period and there's periods before and after that. I don't see what you're saying.
- vijayr02 5y ago
  Not OP, I think it's a pedantic point being made. WW1 and WW2 were both after medieval times.
williamdclt 5y ago
Probably meant "wars in medieval times were* shorter and less bloody than* before and after"

true_religion 5y ago

Yes, somehow when it comes to slave states, people tend to focus on the lifestyle of the slave masters rather than the great heap of humanity living in squalor to support them. In context though, I wonder if serfs really had it better. They still had no freedom to move, and in the early Middle Ages there was no appeal granted to serfs under a tyrannical lord.

brodo 5y ago
Yes although there where also some free farmers. As I understand it, the serfs had more power in the high middle ages than before and after, because the lords also lacked the resources for strong police forces. There was not a lot of metal around, so most soldiers did not have shields or armor. You and your serf buddies could realistically resist the local lord with some forks and knives. Plus the catholic church was also protecting serf's rights to an extend.
- zrail 5y ago
  Also keep in mind that during that period the Black Plague killed 30-60% of the population. Serfs had more power because there were dramatically fewer of them.
  - varjag 5y ago
    On the other hand if it took a plague to improve the standards of living it is fair to agree the baseline was quite abysmal.
    - zrail 5y ago
      Oh no doubt!
    - rufus_foreman 5y ago
      I don't think that argument makes sense. What's the country with the highest standard of living today? This says it's Canada: https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-rankings https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/quality-of-life-r.... If a plague wiped out 50% of the population of Canada, and wages went up afterwards, would that mean that the current standard of living in Canada is quite abysmal?
      - TheOtherHobbes 5y ago
        If a plague wiped out 50% of the population of the First World countries, wages wouldn't go up, they'd disappear entirely. The just-in-time supply chains that keep the lights on and food and other goods in the stores would fall apart within a couple of weeks. Medieval starvation was local. Areas were largely self-sufficient in the bare essentials - except in bad years, which happened regularly enough to keep a lid on population growth, but not so regularly they caused widespread depopulation. Trade was mostly for useful extras. That's very much not true today. Everything is specialised and interdependent, and not even farming areas are truly self-sufficient. This was - and possibly still is - the biggest risk from a pandemic. It's hard to calculate the exact tipping point, but when you have a certain percentage of the population unable to work for a couple of weeks or so, essential systems start breaking down.

mwaitjmp 5y ago

> Also slavery disappeared from Europe, except for Spain Slavery was unfortunately very much a thing in Anglo Saxon England. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#2 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_Britain#2 Pre the migration of the Saxons into England (not long after the Romans left leaving the inhabitants unprotected) they would raid coastal areas and carry off slaves back across the sea. Later, Viking raiders would do the same…

bnralt 5y ago

There were plenty of long and bloody wars during the High Middle Ages (such as the Albigensian Crusade and the Anarchy, just to name a couple). I think a large part of the author's point that this is a long period of time (even if we restrict it to 800-1300, that's about the same length of time as between Columbus' voyage and today), covering a large area (even if we restrict it to Western Europe), and it's difficult to come up with a single criteria of comparison.

tonmoy 5y ago

Do you have any sources for either of these claims? This goes against my general intuition (which could itself be wrong)

tarsinge 5y ago
I don’t have a source for this whole question but regarding that intuition: > English peasants likely didn’t work more than 120-150 days a year. That’s about 215-245 days off a year. From https://www.fodors.com/news/news/you-wont-believe-who-got-more-vacation-days-than-you https://www.fodors.com/news/news/you-wont-believe-who-got-mo...
- watwut 5y ago
  That assumes there is no work out of season. So, no making of bed sheets, no matter king of cloth, candles, fixing tools, no animal care out of season and no work related to small children. No storage maintenance, no baking/cooking.
  - jacobolus 5y ago
    Peasants everywhere work full time, all through the year. For people who are just managing to survive, there is always something that needs doing. Growing or foraging and preparing food (especially manually milling grain); making (starting from raw plant/animal fibers), patching, and cleaning clothing; building hedges, fences, walls, and thatched roofs; making pottery; making and maintaining tools; taking care of animals; .... are extremely labor intensive. To get some idea what life was like for Stuart-period English farmers (and life was much the same in preceding centuries), see the BBC show Tales from the Green Valley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_historic_farm_series https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_historic_farm_series

zeteo 5y ago

> wars in medieval times where shorter and less bloody then before and after Each individual war was shorter and less bloody but there were many more of them as the barons were feuding constantly in the absence of central authority. Also roving bands would periodically loot and burn while passing by. If you look at the time and effort invested into castles and city walls in the period it tells you all you need to know about how safe people felt at the time.

thrownblown 5y ago

Lol. Slavery certainly did not disappear to everywhere but Spain. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_slave_trade https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_slave_trade

mc32 5y ago

Russia had serfs till late 1800s. They were tied to the land of their lord, so effectively, they were slaves.